Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #4614
| From | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming, comp.programming.threads |
| Subject | pthread reader-writer mutex... |
| Date | 2014-06-14 18:38 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lnitfc$6og$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hello, Question: If you ask me a question such us why do we have to use such us your scalable RWLocks and not simply use pthread reader-writer lock ? Answer: The Pthread reader-writer lock uses an expensive atomic operation on the reader side, so when a thread on the reader side executes this atomic operation it will generate a cache-line transfer between one core to the other, and this cache-line transfer is expensive, so each threads on the reader side of the Pthread reader-writer lock generates a cache-line transfer, so this will make the serial part of the Amdahl equation much bigger, so if you need to scale your Pthread reader-writer lock, the parallel part of the reader side must be much bigger than the time that it takes to transfer a cache-line between cores, so since Pthread reader-writer lock don't scale for reader sides that are for example smaller than the time that it takes to transfer a cache-line between one core to the other , this will make Pthread reader-writer not scalable, that not the same for my scalable RWLock, my scalable RWLocks scale much better than Pthread reader-writer lock even if the time under the reader side is equal or smaller than the time that it takes to tranfer a cache-line from one core to the other, and for bigger parallel part io have said that as you have noticed with me that to scale my scalable RWLocks you have to use a distributed memory configuration like in NUMA systems, and on the reader and writer part of my scalable RWLocks you have to use more expensive processing, that means you have to transfer data in parallel from the distributed memory to the CPUs, cause this memory transfers from distributed memory to the cores is more expensive than the cache-line transfers from one core to the other that i am generating inside my scalable RWLocks algorithms, so this will make the parallel part much bigger than the serial part so this will make my scalable RWLocks algorithms much more scalable, and this is good, that's the same for hardisks, you have to distribute your hardisks , and use multiple hardisks an access them in parallel,this also will make my scalable RWLocks more scalable, and this is good. So as you have noticed my scalable RWLocks are still useful and good. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
pthread reader-writer mutex... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-06-14 18:38 -0700 Re: pthread reader-writer mutex... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-06-14 18:54 -0700
csiph-web